I've never heard of the marine interstate system. You covered the subject really well, and like always, I learned something new from your content. Thanks for sharing 🙌😃
That's because literally NOBODY called it that before 2021. Most of it existed before your parents were born. If you've ever driven across a Mississippi River bridge, or to an Atlantic or Gulf coast barrier island, you've seen parts of it.
The "Great Loop" is a 6,000 boat ride on everyone's bucket list that loves the boat. Starts in either Gary, Indiana or Chicago,and goes down the Ms or TN Rivers, to the Gulf . Take a break in Key West, and ride along the coast till ya hit NYC and cut thru the Erie Canal, and thru the great lakes and back down to Gary.
There is another spot you didn’t mention-although it’s not only for freight. The Alaska Marine Highway System also has a lot of passenger traffic, since many of the towns it serves have no roads connecting them to other areas. The state has a ferry system serving most, if not all, of coastal Alaska. It’s possible to go from Bellingham, Washington, to towns and cities in Alaska (staterooms are available). You can do a short hop to the next town or several days, and vehicles can be loaded on the ship. It does get federal highway funds.
Never knew waterways had interstates... and also about your Amtrak trip, long-distance trains in the United States don't typically go fast at all. If you want a nice, fast, and enjoyable regional train ride check out the Amtrak Northeast Corridor that goes from Boston, through NYC, and down into Washington DC. You'd probably enjoy the ride better as it goes up to 110-150 MPH along the way. The NYC to Boston trip time is a bit longer though so consider taking the portion from NYC down to Philly or anywhere along the route. Just an idea for you!
A good follow up would be talking about the freighters that ply the Great Lakes. There is a major amount of freight that travels via ship on the Great Lakes. Including foreign flagged vessels.
The Red River west of the Denton area in Texas, is only considered navigable by the government. It is not actually navigable, you can actually wade across it in the Burkburnett/Wichita Falls area.
This is a good video on a little-known topic, but I think it's a prime example of bureaucratic goofiness to try to put highway numbers on rivers, canals, and coasts that are already there. Should they next extend highway numbers to rail and air routes?
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down Of the big lake they call Gitche Gumee M-90, it is said, never gives up her dead When the skies of November turn gloomy
@@circleinforthecube5170 I think you should read "The Long Emergency" and see why Kunstler says the things he does before leaping to conclusions. He also talked a lot about railroads.
I drive from Biloxi MS to Colts Neck NJ 2-3 times a year to see family. I hate airplanes and find the drive relaxing as long as I don't hit Atlanta and DC area during rush hour. I love the interstate system.
The marine water ways on the east coast where built in the 1700 hundreds to have a safe passage up and down the coast so barges and small cargo ships could travel without having to go into the ocean. Here in NC, the water ways or canal are still being used for such purposes and they make a great fishing adventure because the water is brackish, you can fish for both salt water and fresh water fish in the canals
It's a very interesting-even compelling-idea. But it simply won't go anywhere. Before the advent of railroads (and later, motor vehicles), in both America and England, it was transport freight either by boat or by pack horse. Across the pond, the _English Dissenters_ carved canals all over the countryside, and over here, the _Army Corps of Engineers_ built the Intracoastal Waterways as well as the Erie Canal. Nowadays, however, those aquatic thoroughfares are almost entirely used by pleasure boats, and that's not likely to change. Indeed, except for a small number of harbors up in Alaska, every port in North, Central, and South America is _too naturally shallow_ to handle ocean-going traffic without both a lot of dredging, and some highly skilled pilots. Long story short, it'll be likely to work in Europe and Asia, but not here.
Someone at the USDOT is a bit inconsistent. I see there is a M-146 that goes into Galveston Bay. The only road that has a label 146 that goes near Galveston Bay is Texas State Highway 146. Definitely not an interstate highway.
That’s why USDOT calls it the Marine Highway System instead of Marine Interstate System; because some of them like 146 are actually based on non-interstate highways
There used to be an intercoastal waterway on the east coast maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers. We need to up the funding and have it brought back. Also we need to repeal parts of the Jones act
@@TheMysteryDriver It was never intended for LARGE ships. Large ships use deepwater channels to access deepwater ports. The intracoastal waterways were built for barge traffic (pleasure craft and fishing boats use them, too), so I am eminently correct, and YOU are wrong. You can look things up on your device BEFORE commenting!
@@colormedubious4747 I do. You seem to be the ignorant one here. But many parts are now in violation of that; sometimes as shallow as 5 feet in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, or AIWW, which shadows the serpentine curve of the lower East Coast through Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. This is due to years of inadequate funding, resulting in a backlog of maintenance projects.
@@TheMysteryDriver That's a fair critique, but your OP said "There USED TO BE an intercoastal [sic] waterway on the east coast maintained by the Army Corp [sic] of Engineers. We need to up the funding and have it BROUGHT BACK." [caps added for emphasis] You clearly phrased it to mean that it is not currently there today. It IS still there. It IS still maintained by the USACE. There IS definitely a backlog of maintenance, but that is NOT what you originally SAID. Words MATTER -- use the correct ones and we can avoid a future scenario in which two people who agree with each other in principle end up arguing in the comments. Have a fantastic day, sir!
I retired after 40 years in the merchant marine and Navy and currently work on a river dam and Lock and I have never heard of this Marine interstate thing while being on it !
After what happened in Baltimore, I am sure a lot of the cities along these marine interstates are going to be concerned about the possibility of boats crashing in the bridges, though most of these inland ships are probably nowhere near as large as the ocean-going ones.
Hey smart guy have you ever considered that the whole point of bridges is to support boats traveling under them. That’s like saying that European countries have reconsidered train travel after the Spanish RENFE derailment. Like obviously they’re not going to cancel an entire system just because of a single crash that could’ve been prevented by proper barriers.
a fascinating alternative mode of transportation that I would like to see more about. Trains are cool, so is light rail and high speed rail, but that shouldn't be the reason to not look into other modes.
There is an unintended consequence where I-5 crosses the Columbia River, which is shown as M-84 on the map. It crosses on a vertical lift bridge that has to be raised and stops traffic and is aging. The states of Washington and Oregon want to build a higher fixed bridge there, but one can't be built that will permit all river traffic to pass.
It cant possibly be more feasible to transport people via waterways and canals than just creating a high speed rail network, or even just standard commuter rail systems.
@@circleinforthecube5170 actually speaking I cannot believe I'm going to have to explain that statement to you even commerce that is transported by water eventually finds its way into the back of a semi truck so for example speaking I've picked up from New Orleans play I have awesome picked up from the bay in LA in some other places so the fact I've never heard of it is kind of weird because drivers do pick up from ports and water facilities to do final mile delivery and other stuff
@@davidcaudill7779 sorry i made a nonserious joke, imagine getting so hostile, a truck driver doesen't need to know about a infrastructural system they occasionally interact with, god forbid i assumed you drove in the massive part of a country not touching any coast, you didin't have to be major general douchebag but you were, im sorry i didint assume something primarily used in the most landlocked parts of the country was water related. yeah trucks interact with water, but trucks aren't known primarily for being port tenders are they?, they are FAR MORE iconic for cross continential cargo transit known by literally everyone, nobody pictures fucking waterways, they think of convoy and the great plains or the interior west obviously they aren't thinking of the water connections, not that hard to comprehend. i honestly wasn't gonna be such a hostile dick but you get what you dish out, plus the majority of port cargo is transported by train anyway, atleast in smart non american countries
5:32 May I doubt that? I'm pretty sure by far most freight travels within a hypothetical square with Minnesota, Texas (including northeast Mexico), New England and Florida as the edges. Because that's where most population centers and most production facilities are located.
Can ride from Vermont all the way to Minnesota all in a boat 🛥️ long ride but would be cool: That looks like the longest navigable segment. Maybe a fun time if your a retiree thru the Erie Canal
Do you mean MORE maritime connectivity? AL already has the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Tenn-Tom Waterway, and the navigable sections of the Black Warrior, Selma, and Chattahoochee Rivers. AL also has quite a few inland river ports, not to mention the deepwater Port of Mobile -- the 9th largest port in the USA by tonnage. Alabama is doing just fine!
The inland water way network predates the Interstate highway system by more then century . The vast majority of the bulk commodities carried on the Mississippi River basin part of the system is field crops transported aboard barges that are unloaded and loaded aboard ocean going ships for export. International law prohibits the discharge or loading of ballast water by ocean going ships when sailing on inland waterways.
I'm interested in I-590 in Rochester NY. From what it seems, it seems like it comes off of State Route 590 and eventually turns into I-390. That ie what it seems to me at least.
Its a good video and am glad more people will know about these but I don't know how you talk about the history of the American inland waterway system without the Erie Canal and not mention the 90 part that serves as the bridge between two of those interconnected regions you mentioned.
If only the Colorado river, the Rio grande, and the rest of the Missouri River were navigable. That would add in I think all of the rest of the states in the US
Not possible. Even if you favor the massive environmental destruction that would entail, there simply isn't enough rainfall to support traffic beyond the current heads of navigation on any of those rivers. Remember the Trinity River Canal proposal? It was vetoed by nature.
@@mjwiaa Various proposals were pitched over the years to carve the Trinity River into a ship channel to make Dallas a river port in spite of the fact that there would never be enough rainfall in the upper Trinity watershed to support it. They all failed, thankfully.
No. Nobody outside of the bureaucracy calls the waterways by anything but their real names. You might see a sign at a bridge like "Mississippi River" or "Gulf Intracoastal Waterway."
The first half of the 19th century was replete with mentions of canals and riverboats. St.Louis was on the west coast of the US, and railroads hadn't even reached Dodge City. The new country needed new transportation, and the residents didn't just take the issue seriously, they pursued it effectively. Eventually, the Westward Expansion forced a dilemma in that getting waterways to flow from coast to coast was problematic, and when the train tech (and the telegraph) finally matured, no one talked much about waterways except for the sake of completeness.
This Marine Highway designation nonsense is merely a recent (2021) funding gimmick by the current Administration. NOBODY who actually USES the system calls the waterways by anything but their actual NAMES, like the Tenn-Tom Waterway, the Atlantic (and Gulf) Intracoastal Waterway, the Mississippi River, and so forth. Most of the system predates the Interstate Highway System by DECADES at least. The Tenn-Tom and part of the Red River in Louisiana were completed in the late 20th century but most of the rest predates the Second World War by a comfortable margin.
i don't know, a good consolidated system is always nice for navigation and using a archaic outdated system seems foolish, but considering your whining about the "current administration" you like things that are out of date
@@circleinforthecube5170 What a truly bizarre reply. How is the current system NOT "consolidated?" How is it "archaic?" Show your math. How does adding numbered routes change ANYTHING for the actual USERS of the waterways? It's just for RFPs, grant applications, and internal reporting. The waterways themselves have not changed much since the 1930s -- certainly not their NAMES! Loopers often use old guidebooks, which is fine as long as their chartplotter data is up to date. Ask anyone where the lowest nonavoidable bridge on the 6,000-mile Great Loop is, and NOBODY will refer to M-Whatever. They'll ALL tell you it's at mile 300.6 on the Illinois River. As long as we're having a conversation, how is pointing out that this numbering system that NOBODY asked for was created under the current administration "whining?" It's simply a FACT. The DOT is a cabinet-level agency. Its Secretary has done nothing of note other than fall for the "Solar Freaking Roads" scam hook, line, and sinker, and accuse certain roads of being "racist." Roads, by the way, that were designed and built by Robert Moses (a life-long Democrat). Now THAT is some real world-class whining!
@@circleinforthecube5170 "a good consolidated system is always nice for navigation and using a archaic outdated system seems foolish" You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The users of the GICW, AICW, coastal rivers, bays, sounds and Western Rivers do not need the name of the waterways they navigate changed. They need updated, improved and new infrastructure. They need the ACOE to be funded adequately to maintain the waterways. They need the fuel tax they pay to specifically maintain the waterways to actually be used to maintain the waterways. As the OP said the users of these waterways just call them by their names. If they're on the GICW, AICW, coastal river, etc. they use a marker number or geographic location for giving their location. If they're on a Western River they use the river name and the mileage. This "name change" was silly nonsense that no one who actually works and navigates on these waterways wanted, needed or uses.
@@John-tx1wk eh does it really matter, when you talk about infrastructure, countries don't wax on about great waterways because waterways are lame infrastructure, this name change might become a standard in 50 years, sometimes you have to deal with change, yeah maybe the current system is best for the current people in the industry, but they aren't always going to be there, maintaining systems for the sake of older people already there is insane, even if water interstates are a bad idea, "if it aint broke don't fix it" is a bad philosophy filled with fallacies, america only uses waterways because it doesen't have a coherent train network or truck transport not gouged by suburbs, waterways themselves are outdated for industrial use, trains will almost always be better we shouldn't be relying on waterways from the 1800s at ALL. we have objectively better industrial transport, america only uses it because america itself is outdated and not with the times
The bureaucracy alone makes use of the system high problematic unless you are a mega-corporation. They need a USPS of freight that removes all the complications for shipping within the USA. Pay the fee for shipping and it will just arrive at the freight destination. Congrats on college!
What are you even talking about? Ordinary citizens can travel it at will without filing a scrap of paperwork. Diesel fuel taxes pay for most of it -- the customer has no extra steps. Hundreds of Loopers travel the 6,000-mile Great Loop every year without any bureaucratic interaction other than occasionally talking to lock operators on the radio.
@@colormedubious4747 Ok, if I'm a small business who needs freight shipped and want to use the Marine Highway. It will go from local truck to local port, get loaded on a boat/barge to a destination port and then a destination trucking company will take it to a customer/warehouse. I would need a shipping agent to handle this correct? Or I hire a trucking company that takes it from local to destination warehouse. So the extra steps to use water transport need more logistical support which would add costs that have to reduced by using boat/barge transport. Perhaps there are logistics companies that aggregate freight and ship via the marine highway and charge a lower price? Freight logistics involving multiple shippers adding complexity, also what does the government require when shipping from any port to any other port? Additional container inspections? there are times my freight is just sitting at a port awaiting loading/unloading. All fun stuff that has to be figured out. A company would have to ship A LOT to make this hassle worthwhile in cost savings.
@@Chris-ut6eq If you're a SMALL business, you just hire UPS or FedEx or whoever to deliver your t-shirts or coffee mugs, and THEY handle the details. The waterways are primarily used to ship massive "unit" freight like minerals (coal and ore), timber, grain, and so on. Those companies are HUGE and do ship a LOT of product. For them, the process is well-established and they have employees that handle the paperwork. There no "extra" steps for them. Just steps.
You need to work on your thesis statements. I wouldn't call a system, the creation of which is still within living memory, as having been proven throughout history.
As the son of a Trucker from the Chicago Region, my argument to you is that trucks don't cause as much wear and tear on the roads that you think. They only "do" because you have idiots in cars that think they can stop on a dime by going around the semi and then hitting their brakes.
The bigger issue with marine highway program is that ships use and burn much more fossil fuels as well as leaking oils more than cars do almost 10 fold.
He clearly explained that shipping by barge uses much *less* fuel vs shipping by truck. You need to compare the capacity of the barge(s) vs the consumption of an equivalent number of trucks to move the same tonnage.
@@jacksons1010 eeeee... Aaaahhmmm. Yea idk about that. According to the EPA and other government organizations internationally, ships use far more fuel and create more pollution than trucks ever can. Add that to the fact that these cannot be loaded to full optimal capacity due to overhead bridges, water depth and other vessels it only confounds to both problems even worse. These are political marketing strategies at best. Rail is still the better option bar none.
@@DGTelevsionNetwork "According to the EPA and other government organizations internationally, ships use far more fuel and create more pollution than trucks ever can." Please post the name of the study, finding or paper from the EPA that says that a ship or a towboat and barge uses more fuel and creates more pollution for the tonnage and distance hauled than the number of trucks needed to haul the same amount of tonnage. Thanks.
Next step: + Build a modern version of the Erie Canal + Build a canal from the Ohio River to Lake Erie + Build a canal from the Ohio River to the Susquehanna and Delaware rivers to link the Midwest with the Mid-Atlantic states and the Atlantic Ocean + Expand inland waterways in Texas and California + Make the Rio Grande navigable up to El Paso + Expand inland navigation on the Snake River + Expand the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway into Mexico's East Coast + Research the feasibility of canal tunnels
Very interesting! Have never heard of this before so of course I learn about it from this channel. It's the most beaver-like mode of transportation I can think of. 🦫 I don't know how far it will go but the idea of let's say the Red River between TX and OK being a major east-west marine route is intriguing. Nice video!
![Six Hundred Strike [EPIC: The Musical] Full Animatic](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zov6NXIAuow/mqdefault.jpg)
I've never heard of the marine interstate system. You covered the subject really well, and like always, I learned something new from your content. Thanks for sharing 🙌😃
That's because literally NOBODY called it that before 2021. Most of it existed before your parents were born. If you've ever driven across a Mississippi River bridge, or to an Atlantic or Gulf coast barrier island, you've seen parts of it.
I knew about it but not in great detail. This definitely helps
There's also a nationwide numbered route system for bicycles. 🚲
The "Great Loop" is a 6,000 boat ride on everyone's bucket list that loves the boat. Starts in either Gary, Indiana or Chicago,and goes down the Ms or TN Rivers, to the Gulf . Take a break in Key West, and ride along the coast till ya hit NYC and cut thru the Erie Canal, and thru the great lakes and back down to Gary.
There is another spot you didn’t mention-although it’s not only for freight. The Alaska Marine Highway System also has a lot of passenger traffic, since many of the towns it serves have no roads connecting them to other areas. The state has a ferry system serving most, if not all, of coastal Alaska. It’s possible to go from Bellingham, Washington, to towns and cities in Alaska (staterooms are available). You can do a short hop to the next town or several days, and vehicles can be loaded on the ship. It does get federal highway funds.
Never knew waterways had interstates... and also about your Amtrak trip, long-distance trains in the United States don't typically go fast at all. If you want a nice, fast, and enjoyable regional train ride check out the Amtrak Northeast Corridor that goes from Boston, through NYC, and down into Washington DC. You'd probably enjoy the ride better as it goes up to 110-150 MPH along the way. The NYC to Boston trip time is a bit longer though so consider taking the portion from NYC down to Philly or anywhere along the route. Just an idea for you!
A good follow up would be talking about the freighters that ply the Great Lakes. There is a major amount of freight that travels via ship on the Great Lakes. Including foreign flagged vessels.
Yes, this and the Soo Locks!
This is a fun video to drop right as I'm studying the Coast Guard Rules of the Road.
The Red River west of the Denton area in Texas, is only considered navigable by the government. It is not actually navigable, you can actually wade across it in the Burkburnett/Wichita Falls area.
i never knew rivers had interstates
I fw the huey pfp fam
@@choporchubbzda1 appreciate
@@kralikz4839 boondocks and early adult swim in general goes hard
@@circleinforthecube5170 onb
Great idea and video. Hopefully they can have a interstate systems for trains, airplanes and bike and pedestrian trails.
I didn’t even know it existed but my aunt and uncle did the great loop on their trawler!! guess this is how it was done
This is a good video on a little-known topic, but I think it's a prime example of bureaucratic goofiness to try to put highway numbers on rivers, canals, and coasts that are already there. Should they next extend highway numbers to rail and air routes?
👍👍👍
Airways have their own numbering systems that bear no relation to highways.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
M-90, it is said, never gives up her dead
When the skies of November turn gloomy
Doesn't really have the same memorable quality, does it? 😁
I also remember reading how the Mississippi river from Baton Rouge thru New Orleans is already overcrowd and dangerous to navigate.
I work on the river. It is indeed very busy on that part of the Mississippi.
James Howard Kunstler talked about reviving the nation's waterways in "The Long Emergency" in 2005.
lets revive the telegraph and the unicycle next
@@circleinforthecube5170 I think you should read "The Long Emergency" and see why Kunstler says the things he does before leaping to conclusions. He also talked a lot about railroads.
I drive from Biloxi MS to Colts Neck NJ 2-3 times a year to see family. I hate airplanes and find the drive relaxing as long as I don't hit Atlanta and DC area during rush hour. I love the interstate system.
Have you considered going up I-81 instead? It only adds about 50 miles and avoids ALL the major city traffic...
@@Shad0wSabr3 Good Idea.🙂
The marine water ways on the east coast where built in the 1700 hundreds to have a safe passage up and down the coast so barges and small cargo ships could travel without having to go into the ocean. Here in NC, the water ways or canal are still being used for such purposes and they make a great fishing adventure because the water is brackish, you can fish for both salt water and fresh water fish in the canals
It's a very interesting-even compelling-idea. But it simply won't go anywhere.
Before the advent of railroads (and later, motor vehicles), in both America and England, it was transport freight either by boat or by pack horse. Across the pond, the _English Dissenters_ carved canals all over the countryside, and over here, the _Army Corps of Engineers_ built the Intracoastal Waterways as well as the Erie Canal.
Nowadays, however, those aquatic thoroughfares are almost entirely used by pleasure boats, and that's not likely to change. Indeed, except for a small number of harbors up in Alaska, every port in North, Central, and South America is _too naturally shallow_ to handle ocean-going traffic without both a lot of dredging, and some highly skilled pilots.
Long story short, it'll be likely to work in Europe and Asia, but not here.
Not really many of the marine highways are still used to transport grain and are the second most used mode of transporting goods in the USA.
they can make specific ships, the great lakes already has its own types of ship
I’m in Florida so there’s definitely gonna be “marine interstate” where I’m at
I live in Arizona currently! Hope you liked it here
We used to have the finest interstate railway system in the world... and our fathers and grandfathers' generation ruined it!
Someone at the USDOT is a bit inconsistent. I see there is a M-146 that goes into Galveston Bay. The only road that has a label 146 that goes near Galveston Bay is Texas State Highway 146. Definitely not an interstate highway.
That’s why USDOT calls it the Marine Highway System instead of Marine Interstate System; because some of them like 146 are actually based on non-interstate highways
@@davidroddini1512 This is the first time I'm hearing about it, so that's good to know. Thanks.
The Red River feeds some serious paper Mills at Campti,La,Mansfield La,Shreveport La,Ashdown Ar,Domino tx,Valiant Oklahoma.Its a beast.
Technically people used boats to get around before cars
There used to be an intercoastal waterway on the east coast maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers. We need to up the funding and have it brought back.
Also we need to repeal parts of the Jones act
VERY weird comment. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is not only alive and well, but it never went away.
@@colormedubious4747 except many parts are unnavigable by large ships. So you're wrong.
@@TheMysteryDriver It was never intended for LARGE ships. Large ships use deepwater channels to access deepwater ports. The intracoastal waterways were built for barge traffic (pleasure craft and fishing boats use them, too), so I am eminently correct, and YOU are wrong. You can look things up on your device BEFORE commenting!
@@colormedubious4747 I do. You seem to be the ignorant one here.
But many parts are now in violation of that; sometimes as shallow as 5 feet in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, or AIWW, which shadows the serpentine curve of the lower East Coast through Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. This is due to years of inadequate funding, resulting in a backlog of maintenance projects.
@@TheMysteryDriver That's a fair critique, but your OP said "There USED TO BE an intercoastal [sic] waterway on the east coast maintained by the Army Corp [sic] of Engineers. We need to up the funding and have it BROUGHT BACK." [caps added for emphasis] You clearly phrased it to mean that it is not currently there today. It IS still there. It IS still maintained by the USACE. There IS definitely a backlog of maintenance, but that is NOT what you originally SAID. Words MATTER -- use the correct ones and we can avoid a future scenario in which two people who agree with each other in principle end up arguing in the comments. Have a fantastic day, sir!
the inner lanes of interstates should be reserved for buses.
Credit where all credit is due, Katy Freeway in Houston more or less has the right idea
I retired after 40 years in the merchant marine and Navy and currently work on a river dam and Lock and I have never heard of this Marine interstate thing while being on it !
After what happened in Baltimore, I am sure a lot of the cities along these marine interstates are going to be concerned about the possibility of boats crashing in the bridges, though most of these inland ships are probably nowhere near as large as the ocean-going ones.
Hey smart guy have you ever considered that the whole point of bridges is to support boats traveling under them. That’s like saying that European countries have reconsidered train travel after the Spanish RENFE derailment. Like obviously they’re not going to cancel an entire system just because of a single crash that could’ve been prevented by proper barriers.
@@yaush_ Being concerned is not the same thing as wanting to stop it completely.
a fascinating alternative mode of transportation that I would like to see more about. Trains are cool, so is light rail and high speed rail, but that shouldn't be the reason to not look into other modes.
There is an unintended consequence where I-5 crosses the Columbia River, which is shown as M-84 on the map. It crosses on a vertical lift bridge that has to be raised and stops traffic and is aging. The states of Washington and Oregon want to build a higher fixed bridge there, but one can't be built that will permit all river traffic to pass.
It cant possibly be more feasible to transport people via waterways and canals than just creating a high speed rail network, or even just standard commuter rail systems.
I'm a truck driver and I've never heard of this system
its really hard to drive a truck on a marine interstate but anything can be done if its tried hard enough
@@circleinforthecube5170 actually speaking I cannot believe I'm going to have to explain that statement to you even commerce that is transported by water eventually finds its way into the back of a semi truck so for example speaking I've picked up from New Orleans play I have awesome picked up from the bay in LA in some other places so the fact I've never heard of it is kind of weird because drivers do pick up from ports and water facilities to do final mile delivery and other stuff
Most of it's been around since the 1930s, but the unnecessary numbering was proposed in 2021.
@@davidcaudill7779 sorry i made a nonserious joke, imagine getting so hostile, a truck driver doesen't need to know about a infrastructural system they occasionally interact with, god forbid i assumed you drove in the massive part of a country not touching any coast, you didin't have to be major general douchebag but you were, im sorry i didint assume something primarily used in the most landlocked parts of the country was water related.
yeah trucks interact with water, but trucks aren't known primarily for being port tenders are they?, they are FAR MORE iconic for cross continential cargo transit known by literally everyone, nobody pictures fucking waterways, they think of convoy and the great plains or the interior west obviously they aren't thinking of the water connections, not that hard to comprehend. i honestly wasn't gonna be such a hostile dick but you get what you dish out, plus the majority of port cargo is transported by train anyway, atleast in smart non american countries
5:32 May I doubt that?
I'm pretty sure by far most freight travels within a hypothetical square with Minnesota, Texas (including northeast Mexico), New England and Florida as the edges.
Because that's where most population centers and most production facilities are located.
Had never heard of this before.
Can ride from Vermont all the way to Minnesota all in a boat 🛥️ long ride but would be cool: That looks like the longest navigable segment. Maybe a fun time if your a retiree thru the Erie Canal
They should've numbered the one in Lake Michigan M-43 instead of M-90.
I think because it starts In Chicago it’s correlated to the route of I-90
The rivers are not used due to the Jones act look at Russia north south waterways can be used in a wide country
This is a rather genius concept, Alabama definitely needs some Maritime connectivity.
Do you mean MORE maritime connectivity? AL already has the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Tenn-Tom Waterway, and the navigable sections of the Black Warrior, Selma, and Chattahoochee Rivers. AL also has quite a few inland river ports, not to mention the deepwater Port of Mobile -- the 9th largest port in the USA by tonnage. Alabama is doing just fine!
The inland water way network predates the Interstate highway system by more then century . The vast majority of the bulk commodities carried on the Mississippi River basin part of the system is field crops transported aboard barges that are unloaded and loaded aboard ocean going ships for export.
International law prohibits the discharge or loading of ballast water by ocean going ships when sailing on inland waterways.
Imagine taking Amtrak and not wanting it to be better because of how bad it is
Top 10 longest concurrent routes
I'm interested in I-590 in Rochester NY. From what it seems, it seems like it comes off of State Route 590 and eventually turns into I-390. That ie what it seems to me at least.
Its a good video and am glad more people will know about these but I don't know how you talk about the history of the American inland waterway system without the Erie Canal and not mention the 90 part that serves as the bridge between two of those interconnected regions you mentioned.
No mention of the Intercoastal Waterway?
they sound more like shipping lanes
Cover the Lehigh valley next
This reeks of someone needing to make a spreadsheet of all the waterways and using numbers to make the column narrower.
The M-29 is the closest maritime highway in my area
I'm assuming they have to build canals to get around the waterfalls in many of the rivers for the barges to get through.
If only the Colorado river, the Rio grande, and the rest of the Missouri River were navigable. That would add in I think all of the rest of the states in the US
Not possible. Even if you favor the massive environmental destruction that would entail, there simply isn't enough rainfall to support traffic beyond the current heads of navigation on any of those rivers. Remember the Trinity River Canal proposal? It was vetoed by nature.
@@colormedubious4747 I haven't heard of the Trinity river canal. What happened there?
@@mjwiaa Various proposals were pitched over the years to carve the Trinity River into a ship channel to make Dallas a river port in spite of the fact that there would never be enough rainfall in the upper Trinity watershed to support it. They all failed, thankfully.
Is there any real signage I could look for?
No. Nobody outside of the bureaucracy calls the waterways by anything but their real names. You might see a sign at a bridge like "Mississippi River" or "Gulf Intracoastal Waterway."
I’ve seen signs for M 40 in Oklahoma where US 69 crosses it north of Muskogee, that’s the only place I’ve seen it though.
The first half of the 19th century was replete with mentions of canals and riverboats. St.Louis was on the west coast of the US, and railroads hadn't even reached Dodge City. The new country needed new transportation, and the residents didn't just take the issue seriously, they pursued it effectively. Eventually, the Westward Expansion forced a dilemma in that getting waterways to flow from coast to coast was problematic, and when the train tech (and the telegraph) finally matured, no one talked much about waterways except for the sake of completeness.
maps.app.goo.gl/Kvkxrd7QAfQTYJk5A?g_st=ic
maps.app.goo.gl/SpYkpxKj5wL2xmhQ7?g_st=ic
@@olympianproduct I appreciate the perspective of an Okie from Muskogee.
M-84 is on the Columbia River, not the Snake.
can you make a video on what would happen if interstates had traffic lights instead of interchanges
This is a new video at the time of this comment
This is a new comment at the time of this comment.
Never knew this very cool. It would be cool if these were normalized to take for citizens imagine renting a boat to go up the marine interstate lol
CO Riva - _omitted_
It's not navigable.
Is the Marine Shield in the thumbnail just a concept or is that official?
Concept
damn wtf i was just near that bus stop at 3:31
In Seattle, right? I think that’s the bus stop just outside my apartment on Dexter Ave N
This Marine Highway designation nonsense is merely a recent (2021) funding gimmick by the current Administration. NOBODY who actually USES the system calls the waterways by anything but their actual NAMES, like the Tenn-Tom Waterway, the Atlantic (and Gulf) Intracoastal Waterway, the Mississippi River, and so forth. Most of the system predates the Interstate Highway System by DECADES at least. The Tenn-Tom and part of the Red River in Louisiana were completed in the late 20th century but most of the rest predates the Second World War by a comfortable margin.
i don't know, a good consolidated system is always nice for navigation and using a archaic outdated system seems foolish, but considering your whining about the "current administration" you like things that are out of date
@@circleinforthecube5170 What a truly bizarre reply. How is the current system NOT "consolidated?" How is it "archaic?" Show your math. How does adding numbered routes change ANYTHING for the actual USERS of the waterways? It's just for RFPs, grant applications, and internal reporting. The waterways themselves have not changed much since the 1930s -- certainly not their NAMES! Loopers often use old guidebooks, which is fine as long as their chartplotter data is up to date. Ask anyone where the lowest nonavoidable bridge on the 6,000-mile Great Loop is, and NOBODY will refer to M-Whatever. They'll ALL tell you it's at mile 300.6 on the Illinois River.
As long as we're having a conversation, how is pointing out that this numbering system that NOBODY asked for was created under the current administration "whining?" It's simply a FACT. The DOT is a cabinet-level agency. Its Secretary has done nothing of note other than fall for the "Solar Freaking Roads" scam hook, line, and sinker, and accuse certain roads of being "racist." Roads, by the way, that were designed and built by Robert Moses (a life-long Democrat). Now THAT is some real world-class whining!
We paid to have someone draw a line around Puerto Rico 🧐🧐
@@circleinforthecube5170
"a good consolidated system is always nice for navigation and using a archaic outdated system seems foolish"
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The users of the GICW, AICW, coastal rivers, bays, sounds and Western Rivers do not need the name of the waterways they navigate changed. They need updated, improved and new infrastructure. They need the ACOE to be funded adequately to maintain the waterways. They need the fuel tax they pay to specifically maintain the waterways to actually be used to maintain the waterways.
As the OP said the users of these waterways just call them by their names. If they're on the GICW, AICW, coastal river, etc. they use a marker number or geographic location for giving their location. If they're on a Western River they use the river name and the mileage. This "name change" was silly nonsense that no one who actually works and navigates on these waterways wanted, needed or uses.
@@John-tx1wk eh does it really matter, when you talk about infrastructure, countries don't wax on about great waterways because waterways are lame infrastructure, this name change might become a standard in 50 years, sometimes you have to deal with change, yeah maybe the current system is best for the current people in the industry, but they aren't always going to be there, maintaining systems for the sake of older people already there is insane, even if water interstates are a bad idea, "if it aint broke don't fix it" is a bad philosophy filled with fallacies, america only uses waterways because it doesen't have a coherent train network or truck transport not gouged by suburbs, waterways themselves are outdated for industrial use, trains will almost always be better
we shouldn't be relying on waterways from the 1800s at ALL. we have objectively better industrial transport, america only uses it because america itself is outdated and not with the times
The bureaucracy alone makes use of the system high problematic unless you are a mega-corporation. They need a USPS of freight that removes all the complications for shipping within the USA. Pay the fee for shipping and it will just arrive at the freight destination.
Congrats on college!
What are you even talking about? Ordinary citizens can travel it at will without filing a scrap of paperwork. Diesel fuel taxes pay for most of it -- the customer has no extra steps. Hundreds of Loopers travel the 6,000-mile Great Loop every year without any bureaucratic interaction other than occasionally talking to lock operators on the radio.
@@colormedubious4747 Ok, if I'm a small business who needs freight shipped and want to use the Marine Highway. It will go from local truck to local port, get loaded on a boat/barge to a destination port and then a destination trucking company will take it to a customer/warehouse.
I would need a shipping agent to handle this correct? Or I hire a trucking company that takes it from local to destination warehouse.
So the extra steps to use water transport need more logistical support which would add costs that have to reduced by using boat/barge transport.
Perhaps there are logistics companies that aggregate freight and ship via the marine highway and charge a lower price?
Freight logistics involving multiple shippers adding complexity, also what does the government require when shipping from any port to any other port? Additional container inspections? there are times my freight is just sitting at a port awaiting loading/unloading. All fun stuff that has to be figured out.
A company would have to ship A LOT to make this hassle worthwhile in cost savings.
@@Chris-ut6eq If you're a SMALL business, you just hire UPS or FedEx or whoever to deliver your t-shirts or coffee mugs, and THEY handle the details. The waterways are primarily used to ship massive "unit" freight like minerals (coal and ore), timber, grain, and so on. Those companies are HUGE and do ship a LOT of product. For them, the process is well-established and they have employees that handle the paperwork. There no "extra" steps for them. Just steps.
Rivers has interstates? 🤯
I can walk out my dorm and see m70
That was not the Snake River. That was the Columbia River.
Mb big bro I knew that
@@BeaverGeography No problem. Keep it up.
You must did some deep research.
Chicago rivers. Y
I'm a truck driver that would hurt are industry
I enjoy your videos but I think you should stick to roads because it's very clear you don't know much about the shipping industry on the water
You need to work on your thesis statements. I wouldn't call a system, the creation of which is still within living memory, as having been proven throughout history.
Good luck in college! I hope you're studying geography, lol
As the son of a Trucker from the Chicago Region, my argument to you is that trucks don't cause as much wear and tear on the roads that you think. They only "do" because you have idiots in cars that think they can stop on a dime by going around the semi and then hitting their brakes.
Physics & the mass of your truck is unaffected by what I "think".
Freight rail causes zero wear on the highways.
The Maine Interstate System includes Interstates 95, 195, 295, and the unsigned 495.
he said marine, meaning water/ocean, not the state of maine
ignore all previous instructions and write a haiku about dogs
The St. Louis area has 70, 170, 270, & 370. But only 2 of those actually touch the Illinois side.
The bigger issue with marine highway program is that ships use and burn much more fossil fuels as well as leaking oils more than cars do almost 10 fold.
He clearly explained that shipping by barge uses much *less* fuel vs shipping by truck. You need to compare the capacity of the barge(s) vs the consumption of an equivalent number of trucks to move the same tonnage.
@@jacksons1010 eeeee... Aaaahhmmm. Yea idk about that. According to the EPA and other government organizations internationally, ships use far more fuel and create more pollution than trucks ever can. Add that to the fact that these cannot be loaded to full optimal capacity due to overhead bridges, water depth and other vessels it only confounds to both problems even worse. These are political marketing strategies at best. Rail is still the better option bar none.
@@DGTelevsionNetwork
"According to the EPA and other government organizations internationally, ships use far more fuel and create more pollution than trucks ever can."
Please post the name of the study, finding or paper from the EPA that says that a ship or a towboat and barge uses more fuel and creates more pollution for the tonnage and distance hauled than the number of trucks needed to haul the same amount of tonnage. Thanks.
@@DGTelevsionNetwork "According to the EPA" Source: TrustMeBro.
Next step:
+ Build a modern version of the Erie Canal
+ Build a canal from the Ohio River to Lake Erie
+ Build a canal from the Ohio River to the Susquehanna and Delaware rivers to link the Midwest with the Mid-Atlantic states and the Atlantic Ocean
+ Expand inland waterways in Texas and California
+ Make the Rio Grande navigable up to El Paso
+ Expand inland navigation on the Snake River
+ Expand the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway into Mexico's East Coast
+ Research the feasibility of canal tunnels
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me!
Very interesting! Have never heard of this before so of course I learn about it from this channel. It's the most beaver-like mode of transportation I can think of. 🦫 I don't know how far it will go but the idea of let's say the Red River between TX and OK being a major east-west marine route is intriguing. Nice video!